UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class  Book 

337-^  FI17> 


Volume 


Ja  09-20M 


FACTS 


OF  HIGH 


LOW  PRICES 


Printed  by  Habeis  & Heart,  “Constitution”  Office. 


i 


FACTS  FOR  THE  PEOPLE. 


4 


. The  taxing  power  in  all  Governments  is  most 
apt  to  be  improperly  exercised,  and,  therefore, 
should  be  most  sedulously  guarded.  Whenever 
government  has  to  substitute  the  indirect  or  im- 
post system  of  taxation  in  li&u  of  direct  taxes,  to 
raise  the  adequate  revenue  for  defraying  its  legi- 
timate expenses,  this  tendency  to  exercise  the 
taxing  power  unwisely  and  oppressively  is 
greatly  augmented.  Our  Federal  Government 
having  selected  the  indirect  system  of  taxation, 
as  being  more  congenial  to  the  genius  of  our 
institutions,  it  becomes  the  constituent  body,  now 
that  their  Representatives  have  selected  this 
more  subtle  and  complex  mode  of  levying  con- 
tributions for  the  support  of  Government,  to  ex- 
amine minutely  into  the  whole  scope  and  opera- 
tion of  the  impost  system  upon  all  of  the  great 
interests  of  the  country.  Because,  even  admit- 
ting that  mode  of  raising  revenue,  when  fairly 
and  justly'carried  into  practice,  to  be  a good  and 
proper  one,  yet,  in  its  very  nature,  it  is  of  all 
other  systems  most  liable  to  be  grossly  abused 
When  direct  taxes  are  resorted  to,  we  know  at 
once  what  each  man,  and  each  section  of  the 
country,  pays  towards  the  support  of  Govern 
ment.  Thus  knowing  what  each  one  contributes, 
- we  can  easily  detect  unequal  taxation  as  well  as 
unequal  disbursements.  But  it  is  within  the 
► power  of  Government  to  tax  each  man  and  each 
^'as  great  division  of  the  Republic  equally,  and  yet 
by  unequal  disbursements  benefit  some  sections  of 
the  country  at  the  expense  of  the  balance.  It 
is  yet  more  clear  that  if  you  combine  unequal 
taxation  with  unequal  disbursements,  you  will 
confer  the  greater  benefits  on  the  favored  few, 
and  impose  the  heavier  burdens  on  the  oppressed 
multitude.  But  the  evil  may  be  aggravated  in  a 
much  higher  degree.  For  you  may,  as  is  un- 
fortunately now  our  situation,  under  an  impost 
system  of  taxation,  not  only  effect  the  foregoing 
enormities,  but,  by  its  mysterious  and  refined  de- 
vices, you  may, .while  taxing  one  section  of  the 
country  to  aggrandize  some  favored  portion  of 
the  Confederacy,  also  exact  contributions  from 


particular  branches  of  industry  to  foster  and  en- 
rich those  employed  in  other  pursuits.  So,  there- 
fore, by  a sly  and  subtle  process  of  indirect  taxa- 
tion, imposed  apparently  for  the  equal  benefit  ol 
all  persons  and  all  sections  of  the  country,  we 
find,  both  from  theory  and  sad  experience,  that 
one  section  may  be  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  ano- 
ther, and  that  some  branches  of  labor  may  be 
unnecessarily  burdened  to  enhance  the  profits  of 
a favored  one.  When  any  community  has  to 
bear  the  evils  growing  out  of  this  compound 
mode  of  taxation,  it  is  no  less  the  duty  than  the 
interest  of  the  constituent  body,  to  give  the  Whole 
subject  a thorough  and  impartial  examina- 
tion. 

The  doctrine  of  protecting  American  manu- 
factures is  urged  upon  various  pretexts.  Some, 
of  the  champi@ns  of  what  is  termed  the  “Ameri- 
can system”  say  we  must  protect  our  American 
labor  against  the  cheap  pauper  labor  of  Europe. 
This  they  propose  to  accomplish  by  taxing  the 
cheap  foreign  goods  when  imported  into  the 
United  States  in  exchange  for  our  agricultural 
productions.  By  the  way  , I never  heard  a far- 
mer complain  of  being  able  to  purchase  cheap 
goods.  Indeed,  the  more  he  gets  in  exchange  for 
his  crops,  the  better  lor  all  parties.  But,  at  the 
urgent  solicitation  of  interested  manufacturers. 
Congress  passed  a high  protective  tariff  in  1842. 
As  a consequence  of  that  act,  commerce  and 
agriculture  languish,  and  the  people  complain. 
And  what  think  you  is  the  cry  now  of  these  ta- 
riff gentry?  Why  that  high  duties  m^ke  cheap 
goods.  Then,  as  their  suicidal  policy  has  reduced 
the  value  of  our  great  agricultural  staples,  we 
propose  to  relieve  them  and  the  country  from  this 
painful  dilemma  by  reducing  the  duties.  If  they 
are  honest  in  their  professions,  they  should  most 
cheerfully  accept  our  offer,  since  they  admit  that 
their  protective  tariff  policy  has  had  the  fatal  ef- 
fect ol  degrading  all  classes  of  American  labor, 
and  thereby  enabled  our  manufacturers  to  manu- 
facture cheaper  than  they  can  abroad.  Strange  as 
it  may  appear,  they  object  to  our  relieving  them 


from  low  prices,  which  was  (he  very  evil  that  at 
first  induced  them  to  demands,  high  tariff.  They 
either  played  the  fool  in  asking  for  high  duties, 
or  else  they  are  playing  the  knave  in  holding  on 
to  them.  It  is,  however,  “contrary  to  the  first 
principles  of  common  sense,  that  any  lawmaking 
an  addition  to  the  cost  of  manufactured  goods 
should  be  a reduction  of  the  price,”  and  it  would 
be  most  cruel  to  suppose  that  the  manufacturers 
were  in  fact  such  stupid  fellows,  that  in  their 
effort  - to  legislate  in  favor  of  high  prices,  they 
should  ; ; truth  have  legislated  in  favor  of  low 
prices.  ; ;;t  we  all  know  that  cheap  goods  are, 
in  the  i in,  the  result  of  low  wages  and  reduced 
cost  <e  : > raw  materials,  in  conjunction  with  the 
low  rate  of  interest  on  the  capital  invested.  These 
three  e!(  ments  enable  Europe  to  manufacture 
goods  at  less  cost  than  we  can  in  this  country. 
But  if  our  high  tariff  has  enabled  our  manufac- 
turers to  manufacture  and  sell  their  goods  at 
cheaper  rates  than  the  foreign  goods  can  be  pur- 
chased at,  we  must  conclude  that  low  wages  will 
follow  low  prices,  that  our  capital  has  been  ren- 
dered less  productive,  and  that  our  staple  produc- 
tions have,  by  the  introduction  of  the  high  tariff 
policy,  been  reduced  in  value.  So,  therefore,  the 
laboring  classes  are  not  benefited  by  the  protec- 
tive tariff  policy,  nor  are  the  producers  of  the  raw 
materials.  ' But,  on  the  contrary,  the  want  of 
employment  for  the  mechanics  and  laboring  peo- 
ple, and  the  low  prices  of  our  leading  agricultural 
productions,  all  most  clearly  demonstrate  the 
prostrating  and  ruinous  tendency  of  the  high  ta- 
riff bill  of  1842.  That  bill  has  reduced  the  wages 
of  labor  by  destroying  the  profits  of  agriculture, 
and  it  illy  becomes  its  friends  to  say  it  has  cheap- 
ened goods,  when  it  has  thus  destroyed  our  ability 
to  purchase. 

We  can  only  grant  what  is  termed  protection, 
or  a system  of  indirect  bounties,  through  the 
taxing  power.  No  one  objects  to  contributing 
his  share  towards  defraying  the  legitimate  expen- 
ses of  Government,  because  they  all  equally  parti- 
cipate in  its  blessings.  But,  when  indirect  legis- 
lative bounties  are  granted  to  foster  any  spe- 
cial class  of  industry — it  can  only  be  done  by  im- 
posing a tax,  in  the  form  of  enhanced  prices,  on 
the  people  at  large,  or  any  particular  section,  and 
for  the  benefit  of  a favored  few.  If  a piotective 
tariff'  confers  no  pecuniary  advantages  in  the 
shape  of  increased  prices  to  the  manufacturers, 
pray  in  what  other  way  can  it  or  does  it  benefit 
thenl  ? The  evil  the  manufacturers  complain  of 
is  the  competition  of  cheap  foreign  goods.  Le- 
gislation is  asked  for  by  them  to  exclude  or  tax 
this,  to  them , much  deprecated  evil  of  cheap  fo 
reign  goods.  Certainly  if  we  grant  their  request, 
those  asking  it  must  expect,  by  taxing  those  fo- 
reign fabrics,  to  be  enabled  10  obtain  for  their 
American  manufactures  higher  prices. 

This  being  the  object  and  the  effect  of  protec- 
tive duties,  the  agricultural  interests  and  the  con- 
sumers generally,  are  most  deeply  interested  in 
knowing,  not  only  the  extent  of  the  tribute  levied 


upon  them  for  the  emolument  of  the  manufactu- 
rers, but  also  in  knowing  the  depressing  influence 
which  the  high  tariff'  policy  exerts  upon  the  va- 
lue of  agricultural  staples.  However  much  in- 
clined our  protective  tariff  advocates  may  be, 
after  the  passage  of  their  exorbitant  bill  of  1842^, 
to  promulgate  the  absurdity  that  “ high  duties 
make  cheap  goods,”  yet  experience  and  history 
both  prove  conclusively,  that  high  duties  aug- 
ment the  value  of  goods  above  the  foreign  market 
prices,  while  they  reduce  the  value  of  our  great 
agricultural  staples,  impede  our  commerce,  and 
diminish  the  wages,  of  labor.  But  why  should 
ih e people  object  to  purchasing  foreign  goods  at 
low  prices?  It  is  certainly  the  true  interest  of 
all  to  purchase  in  the  cheapest,  and  to  sell  in  the 
dearest  markets.  If  the  agriculturists"  who  con- 
stitute, in  fact  and  in  truth,  the  great  laboring 
class  of  this  Country,  can  purchase  with  their 
produce  a larger  amount  of  foreign  goods  than 
of  American  goods — or,  in  plain  terms,  if  the 
foreigners  will  give  our  farmers  and  planters 
higher  prices  for  their  produce,  and  sell  their  ma- 
nufactured goods  cheaper  than  any  one  else,  why 
should  our  farmers  be  asked  to  act  contrary  to 
the  plainest  dictates  of  common  sense,  and  indu- 
ced to  sustain  the  passage  of  laws  which  cut  them 
off  from  the  best  markets,  and  compel  them  un- 
der many  disadvantages  to  resort  to  the  worst. 

Suppose  a farmer,  when  sending  his  flour  to 
market,  needs,  for  his  family  a given  quantity  of 
cotton  cloth.  He  meets  with  a European  mer- 
chant, and  observes : Sir,  I want  to  purchase 
one  hundred  yards  of  cotton  cloth,  and  have  but 
one  barrel  of  flour  which  I can  spend  in  that 
way;  will  you  take  my  barrel  of  flour  and  fur- 
nish rne  one  hundred  yards  of  cotton  cloth?  The 
merchant  accepts  his  offer,  and  both  parties  are 
mutually  pleased  and  benefited.  But  a Yan- 
kee standing  by,  and  observing  what  is  passing, 
calculates  he  could  make  money  faster  by  appeal- 
ing to  Congress  to  pass  a law  taxing  the  imported 
cottons  one  hundred  per  cent,  which  is  about  the 
present  duty  on  cheap  cotton  cloth.  The  next 
season  comes  around,  and  the  farmer  takes  ano- 
ther barrel  of  flour  to  marke  t to  get  his  supply  of 
cotton  cloth.  But  his  European  merchant  in- 
forms him  that  Congress  has,  at  the  solicitation 
of  the  Yankee,  passed  a law  taxing  foreign  cot- 
ton cloth  one  hundred  per  cent,  so,  therefore,  he  • 
has  to  add  that  tax  to  the  cost  of  cotton  cloth;  he, 
therefore,  cannot  afford  to  sell  him  one  hundred 
yards,  under  the  change  of  facts,  for  less  than 
two  barrels  of  flour.  Thus,  under  the  high  tariff 
system,  the  farmer  gets  only  fifty  yards  of  cotton 
cloth  for  his  barrel  of  flour.  He  complains  of 
this  to  the  Yankee,  who  gravely  answers  that 
the  tariff  opens  to  him  a home  market  for  his 
bread-stuffs.  The  old  farmer  retorts,  “that  by 
your  tariff,  you  force  the  farmers  to  pay  you  one 
hundred  per  cent,  upon  the  foreign  market  price 
for  your  American  cotton  cloth,  but  you  manu- 
facturers do  not  give  them  in  return  one  cent 
more,  but,  indeed,  less,  for  their  bread-stuffs,  than 
they  got  for  them  before  the  passage  of  the  tariff'. 


5 


Now  your  tariff,  to  be  just,  should  require  the 
consumers  of  our  bread- stuff's  to  pay  thg  farmers 
exactly  the  same  rate  per  cent,  above  the  foreign 
market  prices,  as  the  consumers  of  manufactured 
goods  are  madp  to  pay  above  the  foreign  rates. 
For  all  producers  should  be  protected  alike,  and 
all  consumers  should  be  taxed  alike.”  The 
shrewd  Yankee,  thus  hedged  in,  exclaims  : “Ah, 
my  dear  sir,  1 see  you  are  somewhat  of  an  ab- 
stractionist, for  you  first  confer  a benefit-  on  the 
frianufacturers,  and  then  propose,  by  protecting 
your  bread-stuffs,  to  take  it  away.”  The  old 
farmer  replies  ‘that  every  honest  man  should 
do  as  he  would  be  done  by,  and  if  the  farmers 
first  help  the  manufacturers  to  get  high  prices, 
why  should  not  the  latter,  in  return,  be  equally 
bound  to  aid  the  farmers  in  getting  high  prices, 
and  then  both  would  be  protected  alike.” 

In  the  great  staple  States,  the  mechanics  of 
all  descriptions  are  oppressed  even  more  than 
the  farmers  and  planters  by  this  unjust  tariff  po- 
licy. For  when  agriculture  is  profitable,  they 
share  its  riches;  and  when  prices  fall,  they  are 
thrown  out  of  employment.  The  mechanics 
suffer,  then,  in  a double  capacity;  for  they  are 
made  to  pay  extravagant  prices  as  consumers, 
while  the  system  itself  destroys  the  value  of  agri- 
cultural products,  which  alone  Gifford  them  rich 
harvests,  by  presenting  them  full  employment  in 
their  respective  trades. 

All  departments  of  industry  are  benefited  by 
receiving  ample  rewards  for  their  labor.  The 
working  man  wants  high  wages — the  mechanic 
full  employment  at  fair  rates,  and  the  farmer  and 
planter  good  .prices.  But  the  general  effect  of 
high  duties  on  imported  goods,  is  a reduction  of 
the  wages  of  labor,  as  well  as  the  value  of  our 
great  agricultural  staples.  If  the  converse  of  this 
were  true,  the  protective  tariff  policy  would,  by 
elevating  the  wages  of  labor  and  the  price  of  the 
raw  materials,  induce  our  citizens  to  abandon 
manufactures.  But  the  tariff  policy  does,  in 
fact,  diminish  the  wages  of  labor  and  reduce  the 
value  of  our  agricultural  staples,  by  depriving 
us,  to  a great  extent,  of  our  foreign  commerce, 
and  cutting  us  off  from  the  best  markets,  and  thus 
by  robbing  others  of  their  just  profits  by  its  insi- 
dious operations,  it  accumulates  wealth  to  the 
manufacturers.  With  great  propriety,  this  whole 
system  of  indirect  bounties  has  been  characterized 
as  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a measure  ol  le- 
galized plunder. 

In  illustration  of  what  has  been  stated,  the  an 
nexed  tabular  statements  are  referred  to;  and  as 
they  have  been  carefully  prepared  at  the  Treasu- 
ry Department,  they  may  be  relied  upon  as  being 
correct.  The  facts  which  they  present  are  clear 
and  convincing,  and  the  baneful  influence  of  the 
high  tariff  policy  upon  the  value  of  our  great 
staples.  Flour,  Tobacco,  and  Cotton,  deserve  the 
most  serious  consideration  of  all  those  interested 
in  farming  and  planting.  The  general  and  in 
variable  consequence  of  a high  tariff  on  imports, 
has  been  reduced  prices  of  flour,  tobacco  and 


cotton.  By  a glance  at  the  tables,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived that  the  periods  of  low  and  of  high  tariffs, 
are. separated  and  properly  designated,  with  a 
statement  appended  containing  the  gross  result  in 
each  particular  period,  and  also  the  anual  average 
quantity,  annual  average  value,  and  the  annual 
average  price  per  barrel,  or  per  hogshead,  or  per 
pound.  As  these  tables  contain  a great  amount 
of  valuable  and  highly'  interesting  information, 
the  constituent  body  may  greatly  profit  by  obser- 
ving with  what  general  exactness  the  prices  of 
produce  advanced  or  declined,  as  the  tariff  wentup 
ordown.  Experience  wilisatisfy  all  rational  minds- 
that  high  duties  increase  the  price  of  the  goods 
upon  which  they  are  imposed,  and  these  tables- 
clearly  demonstrate  also  that  high  duties,  by  im- 
peding and  crippling  our  foreign  commerce  with 
unerring  certainty,  brought  about  a great  decline 
in  the  value  of  our  flour,  tobacco,  and  cotton. 
Thus  it  is  that  the  protective  policy  greatly  en- 
hances the  price  of  what  goods  we  have  to  pur- 
chase, while  it  at  the  same  lime  greatly  impairs 
our  ability  to  buy,  by  diminishing'  the  value  of 
our  agricultural  productions.  Nor  can  those  en- 
gaged in  agriculture  make  up  the  deficiency  in 
their  receipts,  by  increased  production.  The  ta 
bles  prove  in  the  most  conclusive  manner,  that 
under  the  operation  of  high  duties  we  may  nearly 
or  quite  double  or  agricultural  staples,  and  yet 
not  realize  as  much  as  we  did  with  smaller  crops 
under  a low  scale  of  duties. 

It  will  be  found,  on  examining  the  following 
table  relating  to  flour,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
boasted  demands  of  a home  market  for  bread 
stuffs,  which  the  advocates  of  protection  allege 
will  be  created  by  the  operation  of  high  duties, 
we  exported,  during  their  existence,  annually,, 
on  an  average,  a greater  number  of  barrels  of 
flour,  and  at  reduced  prices,  than  we  did  during 
the  period  of  low  duties.  The  following  are 
stubborn  facts,  as  the  tables  prove:  our  exports 
of  flour  averaged,  per  annum,  from  1821  to  1824 
inclusive,  909,370  barrels,  at  an  average  price 
per  barrel,  during  that  period,  of  $5  53.  But 
from  1825  to  1832  inclusive,  our  exports  of  flour 
averaged  per  annum  1,017,162  barrels,  at  an 
average  price  per  barrel,  during  that  period,  of 
$5  38.  Here  it  is  seen  that,  in  the  latter  period, 
under  the  high  tariff  policy,  we  shipped  more 
flour,  and  at  less  prices,  than  in  the  first.  Bu 
we  will  hasten  on 'to  the  next  case  in  point. 
From  1833  to  1842  we  exported  an  annual  ave- 
rage of  946,287  barrels  of  flour,  at  an  average 
price  per  barrel  of  $6  01  for  the  entire  period. 
But  though  we  exported,  from  1825  to  1832,  on 
an  average  perannum,  1,017,162  barrels  of  flour, 
and,  from  1833  to  1842,  only  on  an  average  per 
annum  of  946,287  barrels;  yet,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  our  exports  of  flour,  in  the  latter  period 
brought  annually  into  the  country  $222,141  more 
money  than  in  the  former.  So,  under  a reducing 
scale  of  duties,  the  farmers  received  better  prices 
for  their  flour,  both  at  home  and  abroad.  But 
from  1843  to  1844  we  exported,  on  an  average  . 


/ 


6 


per  annum,  1,140,024  barrels  of  flour,  at  an  ave- 
rage annual  price  per  barrel  of  only  $4  60.  Not- 
withstanding the  great  increase  in  the  average 
quantity  per  annum,  from  1843  to  1844  inclusive, 
over  the  former  period,  from  1833  to  1842;  yet 
the  flour  exported  in  the  latter,  during  low  duties, 
brought  annually  into  the  country  $441 ,773  more 
money  than  the  larger  quantity  exported  since 
the  passage  of  the  present  tariff  law.  The  tables 
prove  that,  under  both  periods  of  high  tariffs,  the 
number  of  barrels  of  flour  exported  greatly  in- 
■crehsed  over  the  quantity  exported  under  the  low 
tariffs,  while  the  facts,  as  to  the  prices  of  the  re- 
spective periods,  were  exactly  reversed.  For 
though  we  exported  fewer  barrels  under  the  low 
tariffs,  yet  the  v farmers  obtained  much  better 
prices  for  their  flour,  and  a much  larger  sum  of 
money  annually,  on  that  account,  came  into  the 
country. 

FLOUR. 

A statement  exhibiting  the  quantity  and  value  of 
Flour,  exported  annually  from  1821  to  1844  in- 
clusive. 


Average 

Years. 

Barrels. 

"V  alue. 

price  per 

barrel. 

Exported  in 

f 1821 

1,056,119 

4,298,043 

$4  06 

Low  duties.  < 

1822 
| 1823 

827,865 

756,702 

5,103,280 

4,962,373 

6 16 
6 55 

i 

L.1824 

996,792 

5,759,176 

5 77 

| 

f 1825 

813,906 

4,212,127 

5 17 

i 

[ 1826 

857,820 

4,121,466 

5 06 

1827 

868,492 

4,420,081 

5 08 

High  duties.  ^ 

! 1828 
1 1829 

860,809 

837,385 

4,286,939 

5,793,651 

4 98 
6 91 

1 1830 

1,227,434 

6,085,953 

4 88 

1 1831 

1,806,529 

9,938,458 

5 50 

1 

1J832 

864,919 

4,880,623 

5 64 

fl833 

955,768 

5,613,010 

5 73 

I 1834 

835,352 

4,520,781 

5 42 

1 1835 

779,396 

4,394,777 

5 63 

1 1836 

505,400 

3,572,599 

7 06 

Low  duties. 

! 1837 

318,719 

2,987,269 

9 3Q 

1838 

448,161 

3,603,299 

8 04 

1839 

923,151 

6,925,170 

7 50 

1840 

1,897,501 

10.143,615 

5 39 

1841 

1,515,817 

7,759,664 

5 19 

1 842 

1,283,602 

7,375,356 

5 74 

High  duties.  | 

; 1843 

841,474 

3,763,073 

4 47 

>1844 

1,438,574 

6,732,488 

4 67 

Exported  in  4 

years, 

from  1821  to  1824 

3,637,478 

20,122,872 

Annual  average 

- 

909,370 

5,030,718 

5 53 

Exported  in  8 

years, 

from  1825  to  1832 

8,137,294 

43,739,298 

Annual  average 

1,017,162 

5,467,412 

5 38 

Exported  in  10 

years, 

from  1833  to  1842 

9,462,867 

56.895,522 

Annual  average 

946,278 

5,689,553 

6 01 

Exported  in  1843  and 

1844 

. 

2,280,048 

10,495,561 

Annual  average 

1,140,024 

5,247,780 

4 60 

TOBACCO. 

A statement  exhibiting  the  quantity  of  Tobacco,  in 
hogsheads,  exported  annually  from  1821  to  1844. 


Average 

Years, 

Hhds. 

Value. 

price  per 

- 

hhd. 

Exported  in 

fl821 

66,858 

5,648,962 

$84 

Low  duties.  ^ 

| 1822 

i 83,169 

6,222,838 

75 

| 1823 

99,009 

6,282,672 

63 

h.1824 

77,883 

4,855,566 

62 

ri825 

75,984 

6,115,623 

i 80 

j 1826 

64,098 

5,347,208 

83 

1827 

J 00,025 

6,577,123 

66 

High  duties.  -> 

j 1828 

1829 

96,278 

77,131 

5,269,960 

4,982,974 

54 

65 

1830 

83,810 

5.586,365 

67 

1831 

86,718 

4,892,388 

56 

J832 

106,806 

5.999,769 

56 

ri833 

83.153 

5-755,968 

69 

1834 

87,979 

6,595,307 

75 

1835 

94,353 

8,250,577 

87 

1836 

109,042 

10,058,640 

92 

Low  duties. 

! 1837 
1 1838 

100,232 

100,593 

5,795,647 

7,392,029 

58 

73 

1839 

78,995 

9,832,943 

112 

1840 

119,484 

9,883,957 

83 

1841 

147,828 

12,576,763 

85 

L1842 

158,710 

9,540,755 

61 

High  duties.  ^ 

' 1843 

94  454- 

4,650,979 

49 

• 1844 

163,042 

8,385,555 

51 

Exported  in  4 

years 

from  1821  to  1824 

326,919 

23,010,038 

Annual  average 

- 

81,730 

5,752,509 

70 

Exported  in  8 

years, 

from  1825  to  1832 

690,850 

44,771,410 

Annual  average 

- 

86,356^ 

15,596,427 

65 

Exported  in  10  years, 

from  1833  to  1842 

1,080,369  85,682,524 

Annual  average 

.. 

108,037 

8,568,252 

79 

Exported  in  1 843  and 

1844 

- 

257,496 

13  036,534 

Annual  average 

- 

128,748 

6,518,267 

51 

In  turning  to  the  tables  explanatory  of  the  to- 
bacco trade,  we  find  a most  extraordinary  coinci- 
dence in  nearly  all  the  facts  just  explained  in  re- 
lation to  the  effect  of  high  and  low  duties  upon 
the  exports  as  well  as  the  price  of  flour,  and  that 
the  same  results  attended  the  tobacco  trade.  A 
close  examination  of  these  tables  presents  to  the 
mind  a variety  of  important  views.  We  find  in 
the  year  1843  a most  tremendous  falling  off,  both 
in  the  number  of  hogsheads  as  well  as  in  the  value 
of  the  tobacco  exported.  Indeed,  in  1842,  1843, 
and  in  1844,  the  annual  average  value  per  hogs- 
head was  less  than  at  any  three  preceding  years 
since  1821,  and  the  aggregate  value  of  the  entire 
exportation,  for  those  three  years,  was  greatly 
under  that  of  the  entire  exportation  for  the  next 
preceding  three  years.  The  annual  average 
value,  per  hogshead,  of  tobacco  exported  from 
1821  to  1824,  was  $70;  from  1825  to  1832  it  feU 
to  $65  per  hogshead ; from  1833  to  1842  it  again 


rose  up  to  $79  per  hogshead  5 and  from  1843  to 
1844  it  again  fell  down  to  $51  per  hogshead. 
Some  may  suppose  the  quality  of  the  crop  may 
explain  this;  but  in  our  calculations  we  have 
embraced  Ions:  periods  during  the  existence  of 
, ion,  and  high  tariffs,  and  it  is  fair  to  infer  that 
casualties  would  as  frequently  affect  the  esti- 
mates on  one  side  as  the  other.  The  price  per 
hogshead,  the  aggregate  value,  and  the  number 
>0f  hogsheads  exported  in  each  year  since  1821, 
standout  boldly  in  the  tables,  and  demonstrate 
how  oppressively  the  tariff  policy  acted  upon  this 
great  staple  of  the  planters. 

COTTON. 


Quantity  and  value  of  Cotton  exported  annually 
from  1821  to  1844. 


Years. 

Pounds. 

Value. 

Av  ’ge 
price . 

Exported  in 

^1821 

124,893,405 

20.157,484 

16.2 

1822 

144,675,095 

24,035,058 

16.6 

Low  duties. 

1823 

173.723,270 

20,445,520 

11.8 

L1824 

142,369.663 

21,947,401 

15.4 

^1825 

176,449,907 

36,846,649 

20.9 

1826 

204,535,415 

25,025,214 

12.2 

1827 

294,3:0,115 

29,359,545 

10.0 

High  duties. 

1828 

210,590,463 

22,487,229 

10.7 

1829 

264,837,186 

26.575,311 

10.0 

1830 

298,459,102 

29,674,883 

9.9 

1831 

276,979,784 

25,289,492 

9.1 

J832 

322,215,122 

31,724,682 

9.8 

1 

rl833 

1834 

324,698,604 

36,191,105 

11. 1 

384,717,907 

49,448,402' 

12.8 

1835 

387,358.992 

64,961,302 

16.8 

1836 

423,631,302 

71,284,925 

16.8 

Low  duties. -< 

L837 

444,211,537 

63,240,102 

14.2 

183& 

595,952,29? 

61,556,811 

10.3 

1839 

413.624,212 

61,238,982 

14.8 

1840 

743,941,061 

63,870,307 

8.5 

1841 

530,204,100 

54,330,341 

10.2 

L1842 

584,717,017 

47,593,464 

8.1 

High  duties.  ^ 

C 1843 

792,297,106 

49,119,806 

6.2 

1 1844 

663,633,455 

54,063,501 

8.1 

Exported  in  4 years 
from  1821  to  1824, 

585,661,433 

86,585,463 

Annual  average, 

146,415,358 

21,646,366 

14.8 

Exported  in  8 years, 
from  1825  to  1832, 

2,048,377,094 

226,983,005 

Annual  average, 

256,647,136 

28,372,876 

11.1 

Exported  in  10 years 
from  1833  to  1842, 

4,833,057,029 

573,715,741 

Annual  average, 

483,305,703 

57,371,574 

11.8 

Exported  in  1843 
and  1844, 

| Annual  average, 

1,455,930,561 

727,965,280 

103,183,307 

51,591,653^ 

7.087 

Treasury  Department, 

Register’s  Office,  Jan.  30,  1845. 

T.  L.  SMITH,  Reg’r. 

I The  tables  setting  forth  the  exports  and  value 
of  cotton,  annually,  from  1821  to  1844,  equally 
with  those  just  examined,  prove  the  singular  ex- 
actness with  which  all  of  our  great  agricultural 
staples  rise  or  fall  as  the  duties  upon  imports  go 
up  or  down.  The  present  very  low  prices  should 


induce  the  farmers  and  planters  to  inquire  into 
the  causes  that  produce  such  injurious  results.  It 
cannot  be  ascribed  to  over  production,  for  that 
has  been  progressing  since  1821;  and  by  casting 
the  eye  over  the  table  it  will  be  plainly  seen  that, 
though  the  supplies  were  annually  increasing, 
yet,  as  the  tariff  policy  vibrated  from  high  to  low 
duties,  the  prices  of  our  agricultural  products 
also  vibrated,  in  exact  unison,  from  high  to  low. 
Look  at  the  increased  supplies  of  cotton  from  1825 
to  1832,  and  the  fall  in  prices  during  that  time, 
and  then  look  at  the  increased  supplies  from 
1832  to  1842,  and  mark  the  rise  in  prices  in  the 
latter  period.  But  as  soon  as  Congress  passed 
the  high  tariff  bill  of  1842,  behold  how  the  price 
of  cotton  has  fallen.  From  1825  to  1832  there 
was  an  increase  in  the  cotton  crop  of  about  75 
per  cent.,  and  the  price  fell  from  14  cents  per 
pound — which  it  had  maintained  during  the 
foui  preceding  years,  down  to  11  cents  the 
pound.  But  from  1833  to  1842,  there  was 
a similar  increase  of  about  seventy-five  per  cent, 
in  the  crop,  but  the  price  rose,  nevertheless,  a 
few  mills  per  pound.  From  1843  to  1844,  thera 
was  still  about  the  same  increase  of  seventy-five 
per  cent,  in  the  crop,  but  the  price  again  fell  to 
seven  cents  per  pound.  Certainly,  in  both  in- 
stances, under  high  duties,  the  cotton  crop,  as 
there  was  about  the  regular  rate  of  increase 
maintained,  should,  under  all  the  boasted  advan- 
tages of  the  home  market,  at  least,  have  sold  as 
high  as  it  did  under  the  descending  scale  of  du- 
ties from  1832  to  1842.  Thus  we  find  that  the- 
home  market  does  not  enhance  the  price  of  our 
agricultural  staples,  but  we  are  forcibly  taught 
the  fact,  that  as  you  restrict  commerce,  you  im- 
air  the  value  of  our  exports;  and  on  the  other 
and,  that,  as  you  Liberate  commerce  from  these 
restrictions,  you  thereby  give  an  impulse  to 
trade,  and  so  augment  their  value.  When  the 
agriculturists  get  low  prices  for  their  produce,, 
you  diminish  their  ability  to  purchase,  or  to  give 
employment  to  others,  and  thus,  by  bringing 
about  hard  times  in  the  farming  and  planting 
States,  you  force  them  to  consume  less  and  export 
more,  though,  owing  to  the  blighting  effects  of 
the  restrictive  system,  they  get  but  little  in  re- 
turn. So,  too,  hard  times  thus  brought  about, 
equally  curtaij  the  ability  of  all  others  to  con- 
sume our  staples,  and  the  system  which  it  was 
said  would  stimulate  and  sustain  a good  home 
market  for  our  agricultural  products,  defeats  it- 
self. 

In  Great  Britain  they  manufacture  more  goods 
by  hundreds  of  millions,  than  will  supply  their 
home  market.  But  they  do  not  produce  an  ade- 
quate supply  of  grain  for  breadstuff's.  The  for- 
mer being  in  excess,  not  only  supplies  the  home 
market,  but  leaves  an  immense  surplus  to  be  sent 
abroad.  Therefore,  British  manufacturers,  see- 
ing the  importance  of  free  ingress  and  egress 
amongst  nations,  are  in  favor  of  what  is  termed 
free  trade,  that  they  may  dispose  of  their  surplus 
goods  most  advantageously.  But  the  farmers. 


8 


not  being  able  to  produce  a sufficiency  of  bread- 
stuffs  to  supply  the  home  market,  see  that  it  is 
most  to  their  interest  to  tax  the  introduction  of 
grain  into  Great  Britain,  because,  by  so  doing, 
they  are  enabled  to  monopolize  the  home  market, 
and  force  the  consumers  to  pay  extravagant 
prices  for  their  flour.  Owing  to  this  state  of 
facts,  the  farmers  in  Great  Britain  aie  the  ac- 
knowledged champions  of  high  duties.  In  the 
United  States  the  (acts  are  exactly  reversed.  Here 
we  produce  an  excess  of  agricultural  staples 
after  furnishing  the  home  market,  and/  con- 
sequently, have  a heavy  surplus  left  to  send 
abroad.  Thus  circumstances  make  our  agricul- 
turists the  champions  for  what  is  popularly  called 
free-trade,  so  that  they  may  take  out  and  sell  their 
crops  in  the  foreign  markets,  and  make  their  pur- 
chases and  return  home  with  the  largest  amount 
of  nett  profits.  But  our  American  manufactu- 
rers, not  yet  being  able  to  produce  enough  to 
supply  the  home  market,  like  the  British  farmers, 
are  prompted  by  an  unjust  desire  of  gain,  to  ask 
Congress  to  pass  laws  taxing  most  heavily  the 
foreign  goods  when  imported,  so  as  to  give  our 
manufacturers  a monopoly  of  the  home  market 
by  excluding  foreign  competition,  and  thus  place 
our  consumers  of  goods  here,  as  the  consumers 
of  bread-stuffs  are  in  Great  Britain,  at  the  mercy 
of  the  interested  few,  who  by  the  force  of  unjust 
laws  are  enabled  to  control  the  home  market  and 
v compel  the  people  to  pay  them  exorbitant  prices. 
From  this  view'  of  the  situation  of  the  two  na- 
tions, it  will  be  found  that  American  manufactu- 
rers are  identified  in  policy  and  interest  with  the 
British  farmers,  and  therefore  both  are  the  ad- 
vocates in  their  respective  countries  for  high  du- 
ties, to  protect  their  particular  interests,  and 
thereby  guarantying  to  them  the  monopoly  in 
their  especial  line  of  the  home  market — while, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  will  be  as  clearly  seen  that 
the  agriculturists  in  the  United  States  and  the  fo- 
reign manufacturers  are  identified  in  interest  and 
policy,  and  therefore  both  are  the  advocates  of 
the  fewest  restrictions  upon  commerce,  because 
each  wishes  to  make  the  most  profitable  ex- 
change of  their  surplus  productions,  and  there- 


fore both  desire  free  ingress  and  egress  to  the 
best  markets.  Let  the  agncultursts  in  America 
bear  it  constantly  in  mind,  that  the  farming  inte#- 
restin  Great  Britain  imposes  the  most  intolerable 
burdens  upon  our  productions  when  exported  to 
that  country,  and  that  the  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States,  in  return,  impose  the  most  griev- 
ous taxes  upon  European  goods.  This  coalition 
to  cut  down  the  profits  of  American  agriculture 
can  be  most  successfully  met  by  associating  the 
joint  efforts  oi  the  farmers  in  America  with  those 
of  the  manufacturers  of  Europe.  Nor,  in  seeking 
a redress  from  the  oppressions  under  which  they 
labor,  will  it  be  necessary  to  impose  upon  the 
other  departments  of  industry.  All  they  have  to 
do  is  reciprocally  to  reduce  existing  rates  of  duties 
in  both  countries,  and,  by  removing  the  hand  of 
oppression,  commerce  and  agriculture  will  as- 
sume their  accustomed  prosperity. 

The  late  Zoll  Verein  treaty,  negotiated  by! 
our  minister,  Mr.  Wheaton,  with  a portion  of 
the  German  States,  contains  the  valuable  feature 
of  a reciprocal  reduction  of  duties.  The  Ger- 
mans propose  to  reduce  the  duties  on  our  Ame- 
rican staples,  if  we  will  also  reduce  the  duties 
upon  their  manufactures.  Let  the  principle  of 
this  treaty  be  adopted  by  the  American  Senate, 
and  England  and  France — nay,  all  nations  with 
whom  we  trade,  would  propose  a reciprocal  re- 
duction of  duties.  This  is  the  true  and  just  po- 
licy, and  will  put  our  agriculturists  fairly  into 
the  command  of  the  . best  markets.  This 
great  principle  of  a reciprocal  reduction  o 
duties,  if  adopted,  as  it  most  certainly  should 
be,  will  open  out  all  the  great  springs  of 
commerce,  which  the  restrictive  tariff  policy 
is  designed  to  dam  up,  and  thus,  by  liberalizin, 
trade,  and  stimulating  a bold  and  vigorous  cir- 
culation along  all  the  great  channels  of  com 
merce,  give  health,  impulse,  and  activity  to  a’ 
the  great  departments  ot  industry — these  neces 
sarily  elevate,  civilize,  and  enrich  the  people, 
making  the  country  prosperous  and  happy,  and 
all  this  can  be  attained  by  granting  freedom  to 
all,  and  inflicting  oppression  upon  none. 

A Member  of  the  28th  Cowgress. 


